Lords Sitting of 27 April 1893

LAW OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 42.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD MONKS WELL*LORD MONKS WELL, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said it applied only to the Municipality of Dublin, and it proposed to ex tend the protection now afforded to debtors owing £10 and less to debtors owing £20 and less. The principal Act of 1888 referred to in the Bill placed certain restrictions on the levying of distress and execution, intended to prevent fraud or hardship. Clauses 3 and 4 of this Act extended those restrictions to debtors owing up to £20. Clause 5 merely doubled the maximum payment to be made to bailiffs. He might mention that, like the Act of 1888, this Bill was introduced at the urgent request of the Recorder of Dublin, and it had been agreed to by members of every political denomination.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Monkswell.)
  *LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill has stated with accuracy its provisions; and I know from a communication I have received from the Recorder of Dublin—one of the most respected of the Judges in Ireland— that the Bill has practically emanated from his own suggestions. I believe it is calculated to materially ameliorate hardships which are now found to exist. Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 57.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD PLAYFAIR*LORD PLAYFAIR, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said he was afraid it would be difficult to make it intelligible to their Lordships, but he would try his best in a few words to do so. The Scotch Act of 1891 was passed for the same purpose as the well-known English Act, by which Local Authorities were permitted to issue Stock for carrying out public improvements and for public purposes. When the Local Authorities Loans Act was passed for Scotland in 1891, it was found to be very useful, and a number of burghs immediately proposed to issue Stock; but when they tried to do so, they experienced great difficulties. The Scotch Act differed from the English Act chiefly in one respect: that while the latter allowed all the regulations for borrowing money to be made by the Local Government Board subject to the approval of the Privy Council, and to be laid on the Table in both Houses of Parliament for 30 days, the Scotch Act tried to put all those regulations in one Operative Clause, the 5th, of the Act. That 5th clause, which was the Operative Clause of the Act, was found to be perfectly unintelligible. In the opinion of a distinguished Law Officer, its provisions were contradictory and subversive of one another; and, in fact, nobody could understand it. The Scotch Law Officers of the late Government did their best to explain it, but found they could not. They called in legal experts, but they were unable to interpret its meaning; and the present Law Officers for Scotland were equally unable to explain the meaning of the 1st sub-section of the Operative Clause of the Act. The object of this Bill was to amend that clause by repealing the 1st sub-section, and giving to it an intelligible explanation; and then it assimilated the Act to the English Act, which would allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to issue regulations, as was done by the President of the Local Government Board, in order to prevent all the details being put into the Act. The Bill had passed in the House of Commons without opposition, and he hoped their Lordships would give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Playfair.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

POST OFFICE (ACQUISITION OF SITES) BILL.—(No. 36.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD PLAYFAIRmoved that the Amendments of the Chairman of Committees be accepted.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to he received on Monday next.

RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL.—(No. 64.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD MONKSWELL*LORD MONKSWELL, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said: The Bill had been introduced by the President of the Local Government Board to remedy a practical defect in the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act of 1876 owing to the decision of an eminent lawyer, which seemed to show that the Act required amendment. Section 3 made it an offence to cause to fall or flow, or to knowingly permit to fall or flow, into any stream any solid or liquid matter. The section further provided for the case of sewage passing along a channel constructed, or in course of construction, unless the Court were satisfied that the best practical and available means to render such sewage harmless had been used. It was obviously intended that the Act should apply also to sewers which were unconstructed at the date of the passing of the Act. A case occurred under Section 17 of the Public Health Act, which was very much to the same effect as that section, on which it was decided that a Local Authority by merely permitting sewage so to fall or flow did not commit any offence if the Local Authority had done nothing actively to turn sewage into a stream. That decision was remitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, who advised the Local Government Board that it applied to the provisions of
  1284
  the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act so that a Sanitary Authority would not be committing an offence against the Act by merely permitting the discharge of sewage into a stream through a sewer (constructed prior to the passing of the Public Health Act of 1875), in which case it had to be shown in addition, in order to constitute an offence, that the Sanitary Authority had done something actively to turn sewage into the stream. This Bill was intended to meet that difficulty. It provided that—
  "Where any sewage matter falls or flows, or is carried into any stream after passing through or along a channel which is vested in a sanitary authority, the sanitary authority shall, for the purposes of section three of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, be deemed to knowingly permit the sewage matter so to fall, flow, or be carried."
  The effect of it would be that, whore sewage was passed into a stream through any sewer vested in a Sanitary Authority, it would be an offence in that Authority to allow the sewage to continue to be passed into the stream unless the best practical available methods were used to render it harmless. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Monkswell.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. (No. 34.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, the Bill which I have to ask your Lordships to read a second time makes no alteration in the law, but consolidates the provisions to be found in various Acts in reference to the law of enfranchisement of copyholds in land. I think it will be found very convenient to codify those enactments. The measure has been introduced at the instance of the Board of Agriculture, and I trust your Lordships will consent to the Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Lord Herschell.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I quite concur in the noble and

  1285
  learned Lord's opinion as to the advantage of a Consolidation Bill, and, of course, as a Consolidation Bill I should not think there can be any opposition to it; but I am doubtful whether the noble and learned Lord is quite accurate in saying that it makes no alteration in the law. There are points which may seem small to persons who are not acquainted with copyhold operations; but whether small or not, I do not think it is desirable that a Copyhold Consolidation Bill should contain them, because their insertion diminishes the confidence with which the House passes Bills of that kind. My belief is, that if this Bill passes, escheats are no longer to count in enfranchisement. I do not press it; but it is an alteration which may be of importance, and I think it is desirable that alterations of the law should not take place in Consolidation Bills without notice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Marquess point out where that occurs?
  THE MARQUESS OP SALISBURY: It is the proviso in Clause 6. I would also call attention now to Clause 8. There a tenant is given the power of requiring that his compensation shall be in the form of a rent-charge, and not in the form of a capital sum, where the enfranchisement is at the instance of the lord. That I believe to be in the interest of the lord; but I venture to commend those two points to the consideration of the noble and learned Lord before we go to the next stage, in order that we may have the advantage of his opinion upon it.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, may I venture to say a few words upon this Bill, as I happened to be upon the Committee which considered it? My strong opinion is that it was after the Committee had considered the subject that the law was made as this clause is framed. It was recommended strongly by Lord Selborne, and he was the person who suggested it. I have not had time to consider the matter in connection with the Acts, but I think it will be found that that alteration was then made in the law. I am not going to trouble the House with arguments upon it now, but
  1286
  I will say that I do not think any alteration of the law that could be made was ever more desirable than that.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL—(No. 24.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he would like to ask a question with regard to the payment of fees. A number of charges were specified, particularly with regard to the transmission of the right of patronage. He would not object to them if they were for the benefit of the Church, but they would only benefit those legal gentlemen who sometimes charged more than was charged by the solicitors of laymen, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would give some information as to those fees.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I find it impossible to state off-hand what are the right fees to be paid, but I 1hink I may assure the noble Lord they are not likely to be excessive. In fact, the charges which wore made under the Church Discipline Act were found to err rather on the side of too limited charges. It was, in fact, found that they had been so framed with a view to strict economy that they were too economical to work. If these charges have been made in the same spirit I am quite sure the same difficulty will arise.
  Report of Amendments agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

  VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 20.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): An Amendment made; and Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  POLICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 27.)
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  POLICE DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amend-

  1287
  ment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 71.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 72.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.